Dismissed¶20

Shailesh Kumar @ Shailesh Kumar Sahu v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Jan 2026B.A./9186/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; B.A. No. 9186 of 2025; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.; order dated 07.01.2026; 2026:JHHC:262; Bharno P.S. Case No. 40 of 2025; G.R. No. 453 of 2025; A.C.J.M. Gumla; Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 Ss. 109, 118(2), 3(5), 61(2); Arms Act S. 27(2); pistol firing from close range; gunshot chest injury; fardbeyan of injured Hemant Kumar Sahu dated 03.07.2025; land dispute between cousins; petitioner named in FIR; prompt FIR; statement of injured recorded in hospital; bail application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The FIR was lodged immediately after the incident and the statement of the injured was taken while he was undergoing treatment in the hospital. ¶18

Shailesh Kumar @ Shailesh Kumar Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 9186 of 2025

¶2

¶3

Shailesh Kumar @ Shailesh Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Sitaram Sahu, R/o College Road, P.O. & P.S.-Lohardaga, Dist.-Lohardaga, Jharkhand

¶4

… …. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … …. Opp. Party

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶8

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Akhouri Awnish Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P. For the Informant : Ms. Shabina Perween, Advocate

¶10

Oral Order

¶11

06 / Dated : 07.01.2026

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

The petitioner named above has been made accused in connection with Bharno P.S. Case No. 40 of 2025 (G.R. No. 453 of 2025) for the offence registered under Sections 109, 118(2), 3(5), 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27(2) of the Arms Act, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Gumla.

¶14

As per the FIR, which has been registered on the basis of fardbeyan of injured Hemant Kumar Sahu on 03.07.2025, this petitioner along with one co-accused came on motorcycle, and fired at him by a pistol from a close range, resulting in gunshot injury over his chest. It is stated that the incident was an outcome of the land dispute between the petitioner and the informant who happens to be his cousin brother.

¶15

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a doctor by profession and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ongoing land dispute. The firearm allegedly used in the offence has not been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, rather it has been recovered from one co-accused Suraj Kumar. The licensee revolver of the petitioner was sent for ballistic examination in forensic science laboratory and the bullet recovered from the injured did not match with the licensee firearm of the petitioner.

¶16

2026:JHHC:262

¶17

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the injured sustained three gunshot injuries and there is no reason whatsoever that he will exonerate a person who had fired at him by implicating someone else.

¶18

Having considered the submissions advanced, it is apparent that the FIR was lodged immediately after the incident and the statement of the injured was taken while he was undergoing treatment in the hospital. The petitioner is named in the FIR and he is the person who had fired at the injured.

¶19

I do not find that this is a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶20

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

¶21

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶22

AKT/Satendra Uploaded 08.01.2026

¶23

Shailesh Kumar @ Shailesh Kumar Sahu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailesh Kumar @ Shailesh Kumar Sahu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vivek Bhagat Alias Vivek Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Masum Ansari Alias Md. Masoom Anasari Vs State of Jharkhand

Ufan Manjhi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhola Bharti Vs State of Jharkhand

Dilmohan Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand

Ms Prabhat Udyog Though Its Proprietor Prabhat Narayan Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation through Its Central Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors.